Messages

331

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Possible reasons for class action suit against Getty in the USA

« on: July 24, 2012, 04:54:06 PM »

I don't think that the court system "switches" plaintiffs and defendants.
Separate lawsuit(s) would have to be filed.

Part of the court process is that each side must prove their case.  Especially the plaintiff.
Logically, the plaintiff will lose if the "secrets" aren't divulged.

As a matter of process, people must "come clean" by proving their case, otherwise they'll lose.
Copyright is all based on written contracts, not so much verbal testimony.
So, everything is revealed rather quickly.  If one reads the Getty vs Advernet case, all of this is very apparent.

S.G.

332

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Possible reasons for class action suit against Getty in the USA

« on: July 24, 2012, 04:46:57 PM »

I didn't mean to imply that comparisons were made.
However, if we are to say "Marot did this", and then ask "does Getty also do this?", then we have to make comparisons.   

From your evidence, I think that it's safe to say that Getty has no exclusive agreements with DK or National Geographic, either.
I think that National Geographic holds onto its content for as long as the law allows.
It's been proven in court that Getty doesn't have exclusive agreements with most of its contributors.
I would imagine that Getty chose to take Advernet to court because Getty felt that they had the strongest legal standing against them.
That is, they went ahead with their strongest case.  They lost. We can assume that any of their other potential cases were weaker than Getty vs Advernet at that time.

I'm no lawyer.  But, logically, a case against Marot makes sense because they had absolutely no legal standing to take people to court.
Because innocent people had to defend themselves, they were damaged economically.

However, Getty does have agreements with its contributors, even if they aren't exclusive agreements.
Therefore, it's more difficult to prove that their extortion letter campaign is completely baseless, or that its efforts in court are completely without merit.
Now, they don't have enough legal standing to prevail in their cases against alleged infringers.
BUT, they may have enough legal standing that their pursuit of settlements (even through lawsuits) are not a breach of law, or unjust.
They probably have just enough standing that it's legal for them to have a court hear their arguments.
If a class action were filed against Getty, it's possible that they could pay some of their artists to join in the legal fight.
This could give them instant legal standing in regard to the images that those artists created.
It wouldn't be so clear-cut.  Things could get very complicated.

I would think that those that paid settlements and signed confidentiality agreements would have difficulty finding other legal recourse at this point.
Those that maintained their innocence, didn't settle and were damaged economically by Getty's actions would be in the best position to file suit.

S.G.


 

333

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Heres your Saturday snicker!!

« on: July 24, 2012, 01:33:51 PM »

It's comin'.   
In the meantime, here's what it's like to pay "Copyright Cow" lawyer Timothy McCormack a settlement:



S.G.

334

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Possible reasons for class action suit against Getty in the USA

« on: July 24, 2012, 01:31:14 PM »

Was it not the case that "Marot Images" were collecting settlements/filing lawsuits under the guise of "Getty Images"?
Even though Marot has no formal corporate connection to Getty?
If this was the case, it's difficult to make valid comparisons in regard to the actions of Marot and Getty.

It's kind of like comparing apples to oranges.

S.G.

335

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: July 24, 2012, 11:24:17 AM »

I personally have never seen a distinction between a "demo page" and "an actual website" in copyright law.
I guess that one could say that "damages" were minimal due to the non-commercial nature of a "demo page".
Correct me if I'm wrong.

But, yeah, Getty lies and tries to steal from people.

S.G.

336

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Who owns the copyright GI US or one of their international Affiliates

« on: July 24, 2012, 11:20:15 AM »

It would be a pain to go through the motions to show that "Getty US" and "Getty Ireland" are somehow a different company.
Getty lacks legal standing because they don't own their content.  It's easy, guys.

S.G.

337

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Recieved a demand letter today

« on: July 24, 2012, 11:18:13 AM »

This section refers to the third party liability of service providers.

The best defense against Getty has always been their lack of legal standing in regards to ownership of the actual content.
If they won't provide proof of their claims, tell them to piss off.
It's easy...  it doesn't need to be difficult.

Read the forum, guys.

S.G.

338

Righthaven Lawsuits Forum / Righthaven vs. Steve Gibson?

« on: July 23, 2012, 11:40:20 PM »

Righthaven vs. Steve Gibson?
'on Monday, she formally notified Gibson and his wife, Raisha "Drizzle" Gibson, chief operating officer of Righthaven, that they had been terminated "from any position with Righthaven."'

'In a letter to Gibson, Pearson said she has placed him on notice that the company she claims to control, Righthaven, "will be taking legal action against you for your ultra vires acts (acts he lacked authority to take) as well as for claims of legal malpractice, which led the company to its current state."'

http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2012/jun/25/righthaven-receiver-moves-fire-ceo-steven-gibson/

S.G.

339

Legal Controversies Forum / Megaupload judge quits case after inflammatory comment

« on: July 23, 2012, 11:27:29 PM »

Megaupload judge quits case after inflammatory comment

"At a recent conference on copyright, Judge David Harvey stated, "we have met the enemy and he is US," a reference to tough US intellectual property policy. Critics argued that the statement called his impartiality into question, and the judge apparently agreed."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/megaupload-judge-quits-case-after-inflammatory-comment/

S.G.

340

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Who owns the copyright GI US or one of their international Affiliates

« on: July 23, 2012, 11:09:55 AM »

Quite simply, it's up to Getty (in this case, for example) to prove that they own the "exclusive rights".
Obviously, any person/company that threatens lawsuits in order to extort money but refuses to prove their claims is lying.

Also, there's no convention that dictates that the person holding exclusive rights (or the company that holds exclusive rights) must reside in the same country as the artist/photographer.

People/companies may sue "internationally". However, any legal process would have to abide by the laws of whatever country the defendant resides in.

Furthermore, I don't really see any onus on the alleged infringer to determine who owns what, or to sort out some sort of international web of B.S.
If they can't prove their assertions, then you're done with them.

S.G.

341

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Heres your Saturday snicker!!

« on: July 21, 2012, 11:29:01 PM »

Lol'd big time.
I mentioned something about "Generals on ELI or the Lieutenants" not long ago.
So, I'm totally taking credit for this unpaid prestigious military "marketing idea".  McCormack, you're frigging welcome.
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/linda-ellis-lindas-lyrics-dash-poem-letters-forum/linda-ellis-engages-eli-through-eli-facebook-page/

McCormack's vid reminds me of a mash-up of Tom Cruise's Scientology promo and the spoof "Pre-Crime" ad from the Minority Report movie.
The one where the little kids holler at the end "Get PreCrime!! It works!!".
Well, if it doesn't work (it usually doesn't) you can also pay NCS collections when McCormack fails again.



The capacitors were swelling in my 800-watt computer power supply.  I soldered in new ones in today, and I'm good to go.
I have all the time and power in the world to meme and satirize the hell out of this.  Not that posting on ELI looked that bad on a 56-inch tv nonetheless.
That's just how I roll.

S.G.

342

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Public Records Requests for Getty Images Update

« on: July 21, 2012, 07:36:39 PM »

People working for the trolls are surely sworn to silence. You can count on it.
This is a very sensitive issue; Getty's been lying to people and they know it.
Getty also has-in house legal counsel.

I wonder if the documents could be dumped into a database (xml anyone?) and let google index them?
It would avoid having to upload them all to scribd.

S.G.

343

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: An Experiment Against Getty

« on: July 21, 2012, 07:32:03 PM »

My personal opinion is that even if a troll decided to file, they'd never intentionally take the option to pay off the table.
It would be very bad if a troll made it impossible for an alleged infringer to settle.
Also, now we have the screen capture... lol.

S.G.

344

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Public Records Requests for Getty Images Update

« on: July 20, 2012, 08:50:07 PM »

Holy shite, Buddhapi.
This is hilarious.  I wonder if these can be dumped en-masse on the web publicly?
Then, the troops (and anyone else) can dig through them?
Perhaps, Google could index them (the collection would come up even before Getty's home page in the search results).
lol.

S.G.

345

Getty Images Letter Forum / Re: Seattle Times full page statement

« on: July 20, 2012, 05:40:42 PM »

S.G.